Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Recently, Sye TenBruggencate (Who recently DEBATED on the UNBELIEVABLE radio show) appeared for an interview on the THEOPOLOGETICS podcast. There, he was interviewed on the presuppositional approach. I found this interview to be very useful on many levels. I am not completely sold-out on this view yet, but it is very quickly growing on me. In fact, it is growing on me so fast that I am really hitting the books on this topic and really want to start promoting it. Not only do I believe this apologetic brings God glory in sanctifying Christ (1 Pt. 3:15), but it is extremely powerful.

If you are a Christian, you really need to learn this apologetic. Believe it or not, i'm finding it to be very sanctifying in my Christian walk as well. I'll share more about this as time goes on. But for now, i'm still studying and searching this out. In the meantime, do yourself a favor and LISTEN to this interview and consider SUBSCRIBING to the Theopologetics podcast as well!

16 comments:

Hi, this is Chris from the Theopologetics Podcast. Thanks so much for linking to my show! I, too, found the interview with Sye incredibly useful, and like you I'm becoming increasingly impressed by the strength of the presuppositional argument and the degree to which it glorifies God.

BTW, I just stumbled upon your blog today, and noticed looking back through your posts that you, like me, have a certain passion for reaching out to JW's. In case you or any of your readers are interested, episode 5 of my podcast will be published soon which will address the divinity of Jesus, answering many of the objections made by the JW's. Enjoy!

P.S. I've added links to your blog at my blog and podcast homepages. Maybe I'll direct a visitor or two your way :)

Hey Chris, thanks for hitting me up! And yes, looks like we do have a lot in common, including weightlifting (though I do a different type). I very much look forward to your next episode. And after listening to your podcasts, i'm definitely encouraged to consider starting my own! Maybe we can have each other on our respective shows :-)

I'd love to have you on! I don't meet a ton of YEC's like myself, maybe we can discuss that together, for as we both agree, the question is not, primarily, one of science, but of biblical authority.

Starting a podcast has been incredibly enjoyable and edifying, and I definitely recommend it. It was a bit daunting at first, and I thought it was going to be a difficult ball to get rolling, but it's been surprisingly easy and inexpensive.

Great to hear you're one as well! Biblical authority is something that i'm very passionate on as it relates to origins and such. And adopting the presuppositional approach has only reinforced that for me.

As far as weightlifting, i've been doing P90X for quite a while now. You've probably heard about it on infomercials and such. I've done a lot of stuff in the past, but this one has for me, exceeded them all.

Actually no, I haven't heard of P90X. I'll have to check that out. Before I started training to compete, I followed a HIT approach similar to Mike Mentzer's, but I gave things up to my trainer who has me doing something along the lines of Westside, which has worked well for me so far.

1) Disproving P does not prove Q. This is basic logic. By disproving all other worldviews you have not proven the Christian worldview.

2) The presuppositional apologetics worldview is founded on revelation. For that revelation to grant certainty it must have exclusivity. It must only come from the Christian God and the certainty it grants must exclude all other revelations.

Unfortunately the advicate of PA can only assert to certainty. The cause of the revelation COULD be the Christian God, but it COULD also be Satan, Zeus, or a hallucination caused by drink, drugs, mental derangement caused by disease or injury. The advicate needs to refute other revelations eg Joseph Smith of the Mormons or Muhammad of the Muslims - however this cannot be done - whatever method you use to refute them can also be used to refute yours.

Therefore you revelation is not certain.

To then say state that everyone must presuppose the existance of the Christian God in order to posit any logical argument is the sort of child level argument that belongs in the nursery.

Also - every other God seller says much the same thing, you do know that don't you ?

So please continue to advocate PA - we've watched Sye Tenbruggencate, we have learned from him and we're waiting.

Hello Paul, thanks for stopping by. Allow me to correct and hopefully clarify a few things.

1. What presuppositionalist is arguing that "disproving P proves Q?"

The case the presuppositionalist makes is a positive claim: without the Christian God, you can't know anything. This is claimed even when we haven't investigated many of the other worldviews out there. And as far as atheism, no presuppositionalist I know of has suggested that because we've "disproven atheism, this makes Christianity true." This is simply an incorrect representation of the presuppositionalist position.

2. The "coulds" matter not. You can make a "could" for anything you want. But suggesting such gets us nowhere. Here is the challenge: we stand on our claim that without the Christian God, you can't know anything. If you have another worldview claim, bring it forward and let's discuss it.

"Therefore your revelation is not certain."

And how do you know that? You see, you continue to open your Bible in order to make these claims. The Christian worldview is the only one with an epistemological foundation. Thus, your statement about "uncertainty" fails because without the Christian God, the alternative results in rational absurdity and contradiction (since there is no longer a basis for rationality). This is why we speak of the "impossibility of the contrary."

You call this a "child level argument," yet I think that the conversation between you and Sye speaks otherwise.

"every other God seller says the same thing."

Really? What other worldview used the presuppositional approach? Last time I checked, most Christians, Muslims, and Jews were evidentialists in one sense or another.

"we have learned from him and we're waiting."

Waiting on what? You may disagree, but felt that you were quite inadequate in your defense of atheism (or "freethinking") on the program.

Mike, you've made many mistakes in your 'rebuttal', which is only to be expected as it's your worldview that you're seeking to defend so by definition it must be true.

If you listen to the debate again, or even read the threads on Premier, Sye again and again makes the assertion that Christianity must be true because all other worldviews must be false. He even has an entire page on his website dedicated to refuting 10 other worldviews - so that part of your rebuttal is a fail I'm afraid.

Here is the challenge: we stand on our claim that without the Christian God, you can't know anything. If you have another worldview claim, bring it forward and let's discuss it.

The first part has been thorughly debunked on the forums and the second part is irrelevant (but also debunked on the forums) - you need to prove your worldview.

However, did you notice what you just offered to do ? Prove your worldview by disproving mine - that would be proof of my first point don't you think ? So, fail again.

The Christian worldview is the only one with an epistemological foundation.

No it is not, but if you repeat that statement enough times then you might start to believe it.

Every God seller makes the same claim, and your claim is no more valid than anyone elses.

What am I waiting for ? The second round of the debate with Sye. Last time I was not as well prepared as I thought I was. Now I am. I've investigated this PA in depth, particularly Syes advocation of it, and I've found the holes in his argument (none of which he has been able to refute).

I imagine he did not expect to be carpet bombed. He seems to be googling me and posting many places where I have posted, or where our debate is posted, but I imagine he did not expect your fine presupp response. Good work Mike!

I hope Paul and I can have a round 2 on Justin's show, now that he claims to have figured out my "parlour trick." :-)

Hi guys. I did post a response but it had a typo in it so I deleted it and tried to repost - which failed eventhough the corrected post showed as posted in my email.

Sye - your Presupp footprints are all over the net for everyone to see. You seem to be suggesting that it is wrong to see how other people have dealt with your arguments and also to see how unpracticed you are at advocating the argument you really are (as you often claim to be such an amatuer).

Anyway, below is the comment that failed to post.

Mike, you've made many mistakes in your 'rebuttal', which is only to be expected as it's your worldview that you're seeking to defend so by definition it must be true.

If you listen to the debate again, or even read the threads on Premier, Sye again and again makes the assertion that Christianity must be true because all other worldviews must be false. He even has an entire page on his website dedicated to refuting 10 other worldviews - so that part of your rebuttal is a fail I'm afraid.

Here is the challenge: we stand on our claim that without the Christian God, you can't know anything. If you have another worldview claim, bring it forward and let's discuss it.

The first part has been thoroughly debunked on the forums and the second part is irrelevant (but also debunked on the forums) - you need to prove your worldview.

However, did you notice what you just offered to do ? Prove your worldview by disproving mine - that would be proof of my first point don't you think ? So, fail again.

The Christian worldview is the only one with an epistemological foundation.

No it is not, but if you repeat that statement enough times then you might start to believe it. I don't need the Laws of Logic to be absolute (note the difference between needing the laws of logic and needing them to be absolute, there is a difference) - so fail there, I don't need Morality to be absolute - so fail there (out of interest - name one thing that you believe is absolutely morally wrong, and remember my line of argument on this is battle hardened (Sye could't refute it and neither could David Robertson who wrote the Dawkins Letters)).

So what you're left with is exactly the same as every other God seller. They make the same claims, and your claims is no more valid than anyone elses. Your parlour trick is to erect a strawman, "Ooooh, you have to use our worldview to reject our worldview"

No, we don't.

So,what am I waiting for ? The second round of the debate with Sye. Last time I was not as well prepared as I thought I was. Now I am. I've investigated this PA in depth, particularly Syes advocation of it, and I've found the holes in his argument (none of which he has been able to refute).

Look into your comments tab, example HERE, to see if comments are marked as "Spam" if they are just select them all as "Not Spam". It is a pain we are all going through. Google does not provide a way to edit the filter so they are forcing our patience.